I generally agree with the principle of obedience in these matters, however to assign the "no time limit" idea to "the Brethren" may be far reaching. "The Brethren," as in the prophet and apostles, give only general guidelines that are interpreted by the worker bees (who are doing their best). Often the Apostles and 70's who oversee this work understand it more on a general level as needs are brought to their attention. Not sure how many of the Brethren have actually used NFS recently...and especially since it hasn't been rolled out in SLC!! For instance, didn't we recently hear that the initiation of NFS came when Pres. Hinckley heard about all the duplications from his HP Group Leader and went to the office and said "Fix it?" To imply that every program and solution should be accepted as straight from the prophet is a stretch. The NFS programmers and workers do their best, but should also be sensitive to the real concerns from the users....and I think they generally try to do that. But this time limit one seems to be generally overlooked. I still don't think it's wrong to suggest that there should be a time limit. Heck, some of my names were baptized in 1996 and are still sitting. I'm sure the name slips are long lost. There really should be a method for the computer in the sky to find names that have been sitting 5-10 years and move them to "ready" in NFS. Michele In a message dated 4/13/2009 7:29:30 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, jncrandell@broadweave.net writes: Michele wrote: I do think there should be a time limit on these names.....I have quite a few in my own families and I'm not unhappy someone else has submitted them, but I think it's unfair to submit names and let them sit, half completed for years. Not fair to the deceased!! I agree with your feelings, and yet if this were a crucial problem, I believe the Brethren would set a limit to deal with it. Evidently, it hasn't risen to that level to require a time limit, so the guidelines just recommend an approximate submission size. There are times when larger submissions are appropriate. In my case, I had saved some of the names I had researched because we had a very small window of opportunity to have a cousin baptism session between the time my son was endowed and the day he checked in to the MTC. All of the grandchildren of my parents were together in the temple, with my son baptizing them. It was a wonderful experience for these cousins to share together. Part of my work is also to teach my children and help them understand what this is all about. This was a sacred teaching moment for us. After the baptism session, we didn't have nearly as many endowed members of the family to help with the initiatories and endowments. We began working and totally enjoyed the family time shared with our ancestors. We were looking forward to the sealing session together as well. As it turned out, someone else decided time was up, based on their personal time schedule, and we were not able to finish what we considered the crowning blessing to our efforts. That's ok, we moved on. However, I do think it's important for us to follow the guidelines of the Brethren. When they say there is no limit, it is not up to us to randomly decide what WE think the time limit ought to be. We don't know or understand what is happening on the other end. If/when this becomes a serious issue, I'm sure the inspiration of the Lord will cause a time limit to be put in place. Until then, I still say that we should be obedient to the guidelines and considerate of those who actually created the submission. I don't believe that my ancestors were judging us for the time it took to complete the work. I believe they knew what we were doing and that they were enjoying the temple moments with us. Just my opinion. As for duplicates in NFS, yes, that is the only way to find the work that we had done with this submission. My family began the work, but we deleted the last of the ordinances on that submission because someone else had already completed them. The only way to show that all the work is done is to merge my submission with the other submission. Jill Crandell Please send the one word message SUBSCRIBE or UNSUBSCRIBE to LDS-WARD-CONSULTANT-L-REQUEST@ROOTSWEB.COM ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to LDS-WARD-CONSULTANT-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message **************Access 350+ FREE radio stations anytime from anywhere on the web. Get the Radio Toolbar! (http://toolbar.aol.com/aolradio/download.html?ncid=emlcntusdown00000002)

Michele wrote: "The Brethren," as in the prophet and apostles, give only general guidelines that are interpreted by the worker bees (who are doing their best). Agreed. I was using the term to refer to the Priesthood brethren in charge of the program. I do not believe that all of the details of these things come directly from the Prophet and Quorum of the Twelve. Perhaps I used the wrong term, but I still believe that those who are responsible to oversee these things have the stewardship to receive inspiration and revelation to resolve the issues within their stewardship. The question of a time limit has been asked many times, so I believe that there are reasons why no limit has been placed. I doubt they haven't thought of it. I also believe that at some point there will be a way to move forward the work that has somehow been stuck in limbo. Remember, some of those ordinances that appear not to have been done, very well may be done and the computer has not released those dates. I have a number of cards that I have checked on where the work was done, the cards were stamped, and NFS still says they are in process. This is work that was done well before NFS existed. There are still kinks being worked out in the computer system, and it's totally possible those ancestors have long since moved on and are not in limbo--as it may appear to those who don't have the cards in hand. In those cases, there is no need to resubmit and do the work again. This is one of the reasons that we can now enter ordinance information by hand. This function will eventually go away, because once the kinks are worked out, only official records will be needed to prevent duplication of ordinance work. I'm told that where ordinances are hand entered, those entries will be studied to figure out why the official record is not showing them. This is a way for those in charge to figure out where the bugs are and release the information that is still needed. Jill Crandell

Jill N. Crandell wrote: > Remember, some of those ordinances that appear not to have been done, very > well may be done and the computer has not released those dates. I have a > number of cards that I have checked on where the work was done, the cards > were stamped, and NFS still says they are in process. This is work that was > done well before NFS existed. The engineers want to hear from you about these right away. I turned up 2 times and reported them. They fixed them promptly. Use the feedback and give as much info as you can including PIDs. W. David Samuelsen

JCBrooks@aol.com wrote: Not sure how many of > the Brethren have actually used NFS recently...and especially since it > hasn't been rolled out in SLC!! Every one of the Brethren already has access, much like the consultants were called in earlier than the rollouts. > For instance, didn't we recently hear that the initiation of NFS came when > Pres. Hinckley heard about all the duplications from his HP Group Leader > and went to the office and said "Fix it?" Pres. Hinckley became aware of the problem going back to late 1980s when there was a huge rush to have ordinances done without checking the IGI. I can tell you there were hundreds of my ancestors getting theirs ordinances done twice or more in just that 10 year span from 1983 to 1995. But this time limit one seems to be generally overlooked. They didn't overlook this one. It was brought up during the beta testing when I asked about this problem, this was 1 year before the rollout to first 5 temple districts. > I still don't think it's wrong to suggest that there should be a time > limit. Heck, some of my names were baptized in 1996 and are still sitting. > I'm sure the name slips are long lost. There really should be a method for > the computer in the sky to find names that have been sitting 5-10 years and > move them to "ready" in NFS. The serious problem right now is the conversions of family names in the rolled in temple districts. My friend has more than 150 of them in Oakland Temple. Once converted from old system, they can not be purged if duplicates are found in nFS and merged. Just STUCK in in that limbo. I am looking at the reprinted cards from that "Reprint Family Ordinance Requests and Family Ordinance Cards" and am seeing a lot that dated way before 2004. The hope is that the engineers have a way to dislodge them once reported instead of dragging. This is different from the FamilySearch Extraction Program where there are literally thousands of them slowly meandering through different temples as the backlogs are caught up until the rollout is complete and the gates open for the families to retrieve the extracted entries earlier to finish. W. David Samuelsen

In regards to the recent discussion about a time limit for names, I attended a Family History Conference Saturday, March 7th in Bountiful. The keynote speaker was Don R Anderson, who is the head of the Family History Library and Family History support. I also took 2 other classes taught by him. In one of the classes, he was asked this very question, if the church would ever set a time limit when cards people hold would "expire" and become available for some one else to do. He answered that this had been discussed at length by the church, that they were aware of the problem, and that they knew that something had to be done to solve it. He said that the problem of what a reasonable time limit might be is very different in different areas of the world. On the Wasatch Front it might be a year or two, in the Philippines that if a member saved all his income that was not essential to sustain life, he could only expect to get to the temple every six years. He said that they had pretty much decided to have a time limit and that it would be set by the temple involved according to the needs of the members in that district; but it would be a while before we hear more about it, as this is not the top priority right now; the rollout problems are the top priority. Doris Bateman ----- Original Message ----- From: W. David Samuelsen<mailto:dsam52@sampubco.com> To: lds-ward-consultant@rootsweb.com<mailto:lds-ward-consultant@rootsweb.com> Sent: Monday, April 13, 2009 10:13 PM Subject: Re: [LDS-WC] Time limit JCBrooks@aol.com<mailto:JCBrooks@aol.com> wrote: Not sure how many of > the Brethren have actually used NFS recently...and especially since it > hasn't been rolled out in SLC!! Every one of the Brethren already has access, much like the consultants were called in earlier than the rollouts. > For instance, didn't we recently hear that the initiation of NFS came when > Pres. Hinckley heard about all the duplications from his HP Group Leader > and went to the office and said "Fix it?" Pres. Hinckley became aware of the problem going back to late 1980s when there was a huge rush to have ordinances done without checking the IGI. I can tell you there were hundreds of my ancestors getting theirs ordinances done twice or more in just that 10 year span from 1983 to 1995. But this time limit one seems to be generally overlooked. They didn't overlook this one. It was brought up during the beta testing when I asked about this problem, this was 1 year before the rollout to first 5 temple districts. > I still don't think it's wrong to suggest that there should be a time > limit. Heck, some of my names were baptized in 1996 and are still sitting. > I'm sure the name slips are long lost. There really should be a method for > the computer in the sky to find names that have been sitting 5-10 years and > move them to "ready" in NFS. The serious problem right now is the conversions of family names in the rolled in temple districts. My friend has more than 150 of them in Oakland Temple. Once converted from old system, they can not be purged if duplicates are found in nFS and merged. Just STUCK in in that limbo. I am looking at the reprinted cards from that "Reprint Family Ordinance Requests and Family Ordinance Cards" and am seeing a lot that dated way before 2004. The hope is that the engineers have a way to dislodge them once reported instead of dragging. This is different from the FamilySearch Extraction Program where there are literally thousands of them slowly meandering through different temples as the backlogs are caught up until the rollout is complete and the gates open for the families to retrieve the extracted entries earlier to finish. W. David Samuelsen Please send the one word message SUBSCRIBE or UNSUBSCRIBE to LDS-WARD-CONSULTANT-L-REQUEST@ROOTSWEB.COM<mailto:LDS-WARD-CONSULTANT-L-REQUEST@ROOTSWEB.COM> ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to LDS-WARD-CONSULTANT-request@rootsweb.com<mailto:LDS-WARD-CONSULTANT-request@rootsweb.com> with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message